Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Elsevier Sponsored Documents logoLink to Elsevier Sponsored Documents
. 2010 Sep;120(9-3):2148–2166. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.03.018

Grammatical feature dissimilarities make relative clauses easier: A comprehension study with Italian children

Flavia Adani a,c,⁎, Heather KJ van der Lely b, Matteo Forgiarini a, Maria Teresa Guasti a
PMCID: PMC2956846  PMID: 21151323

Abstract

The Relativized Minimality approach to A′-dependencies (Friedmann et al., 2009) predicts that headed object relative clauses (RCs) and which—questions are the most difficult, due to the presence of a lexical restriction on both the subject and the object DP which creates intervention. We investigated comprehension of center-embedded headed object RCs with Italian children, where Number and Gender feature values on subject and object DPs are manipulated. We found that, Number conditions are always more accurate than Gender ones, showing that intervention is sensitive to DP-internal structure. We propose a finer definition of the lexical restriction where external and syntactically active features (such as Number) reduce intervention whereas internal and (possibly) lexicalized features (such as Gender) do so to a lesser extent. Our results are also compatible with a memory interference approach in which the human parser is sensitive to highly specific properties of the linguistic input, such as the cue-based model (Van Dyke, 2007).

Keywords: Relative clause comprehension, Italian acquisition, Number, Gender

References

  1. Abney S.P. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA: 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. [Google Scholar]
  2. Adani, F., 2008. The role of features in relative clause comprehension: a study of typical and atypical development. Unpublished PhD dissertation University Milano-Bicocca.
  3. Adani, F., 2010. Re-thinking the acquisition of relative clauses: towards a grammatically-based account. Journal of Child Language. [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. Alexiadou A., Haegeman L., Stavrou M. Mouton de Grutyer; Berlin: 2007. Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. [Google Scholar]
  5. Antòn-Méndez I., Nicol J.L., Garrett M.F. The relation between gender and number agreement processing. Syntax. 2002;5(1):1–25. [Google Scholar]
  6. Arnon I. Relative clause acquisition in hebrew: towards a processing-oriented account. Paper Presented at the Boston University Child Language Development; Boston; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  7. Arnon, I., 2009. Rethinking child difficulty: the effect of np type on children's processing of relative clauses in hebrew, Journal of Child Language, 1–31. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Arosio F., Adani F., Guasti M.T. Processing grammatical features by Italian children. In: Brucart J.M., Gavarrò A., Sola J., editors. Merging Features: Computation, Interpretation, and Acquisition. Oxford University Press; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  9. Baker M. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry. 1985;16:373–415. [Google Scholar]
  10. Barber H., Carreiras M. Grammatical gender and number agreement in Spanish: an erp comparison. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2005;17(1):137–153. doi: 10.1162/0898929052880101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bernstein J.B. The dp hypothesis: identifying clausal properties in the nominal domain. In: Baltin M., Collins C., editors. The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Blackwell Publishers; Oxford: 2001. pp. 536–561. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bianchi V. Mouton de Gruyter; Berlin: 1999. Consequences of Antysymmetry: Headed Relative Clauses. [Google Scholar]
  13. Booth J.R., Mac Whinney B., Harasaki Y. Developmental differences in visual and auditory processing of complex sentences. Child Development. 2000;71(4):981–1003. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Caramazza A., Zurif E.B. Comprehension of complex sentences in children and aphasics: a test of the regression hypothesis. In: Caramazza A., Zurif E.B., editors. Language Acquisition and Language Breakdown. John Hopkins; UP: 1978. [Google Scholar]
  15. Carminati M.N. Processing reflexes of the feature hierarchy (person>number>gender) and implications for the linguistic theory. Lingua. 2005;(115):259–285. [Google Scholar]
  16. Chilosi A.M., Cipriani P., Giorgi A., Fazzi B., Pfanner L. Edizioni del Cerro; Pisa: 1995. Test di Comprensione Grammaticale Per i Bambini. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chomsky N. The Hague; Mouton: 1957. Syntactic Structures. [Google Scholar]
  18. Chomsky N. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA: 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. [Google Scholar]
  19. Chomsky N. MIT Press; Cambrigde, MA: 1995. The Minimalist Program. [Google Scholar]
  20. Chomsky N. Minimalist inquiries. In: Martin R., Michaels D., Uriagereka J., editors. vol. 3. MIT Press; Cambridge: 2000. pp. 89–155. (Step by Step: Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik). [Google Scholar]
  21. Chomsky N., Miller G.A. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In: Luce R.D., Bush R.R., Galanter E., editors. vol. 2. Wiley; New York: 1963. pp. 269–321. (Handbook of Mathematical Psychology). [Google Scholar]
  22. Clifton C., Jr., Frazier L. Comprehending sentences with long distance dependencies. In: Carlson G., Tanenhaus M., editors. Linguistic Structure in Language Processing. Kluwer; Dordrecht: The Netherlands: 1989. pp. 273–317. [Google Scholar]
  23. Corbett G.G. Cambridge University Press; 1991. Gender. [Google Scholar]
  24. Corbett G.G. Cambridge University Press; 2006. Agreement. [Google Scholar]
  25. Corrêa L.M.S. An alternative assessment of children's comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1995;24(3):183–203. [Google Scholar]
  26. Crain S., McKee C., Emiliani M. Visiting relatives in Italy. In: Frazier L., Villiers J.D., editors. Language Processing and Language Acquisition. Kluwer; Dordrecht: 1990. [Google Scholar]
  27. Crain S., Ni W., Shankweiler D. Grammatism. Brain & Language. 2001;(77):294–304. doi: 10.1006/brln.2000.2403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. de Villiers J.G., Tager Flusberg H.B., Hakuta K., Cohen M. Children's comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1979;8(5):499–518. doi: 10.1007/BF01067332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. De Vincenzi M. Kluwer Academic Publishers; Dordrecht/Boston/London: 1990. Syntactic Parsing Strategies in Italian: The Minimal Chain Principle, vol. 12. [Google Scholar]
  30. De Vincenzi M., Di Domenico E. A distinction among phi-features: the role of gender and number in the retrivial of pronoun antecedents. Italian Journal of Linguistics. 1999;11(1) [Google Scholar]
  31. Di Domenico E. Unipress; Padova: 1997. Per Una Teoria del Genere Grammaticale. [Google Scholar]
  32. Diessel H., Tomasello M. The development of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech. Cognitive Linguistics. 2000;11(1/2):131–151. [Google Scholar]
  33. Frazier L., Fodor J.D. The sausage machine: a new two-stage parsing model. Cognition. 1978;6:235–291. [Google Scholar]
  34. Friedmann N., Belletti A., Rizzi L. Relativized relatives. Types of intervention in the acquisition of a-bar dependencies. Lingua. 2009;119:67–88. [Google Scholar]
  35. Friedmann N., Novogrodsky R. The acquisition of relative clause comprehension in hebrew: a study of sli and normal development. Journal of Child Language. 2004;(31):661–681. doi: 10.1017/s0305000904006269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Garraffa M., Grillo N. Canonicity effects as grammatical phenomena. Journal of Neurolinguistics. 2008;21:177–197. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gennari S.P., MacDonald M.C. Linking production and comprehension processes: the case of relative clauses. Cognition. 2009;111:1–23. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Gibson E. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition. 1998;68:1–76. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00034-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Goodluck H., Tavakolian S.L. Competence and processing in children's grammar of relative clauses. Cognition. 1982;(11):1–27. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(82)90002-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Gordon P., Hendrick R., Johnson M. Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language. 2004;(51):97–114. [Google Scholar]
  41. Gordon P.C., Hendrick R., Johnson M. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 2001;(27):1411–1423. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.27.6.1411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Grant J., Valian V., Karmiloff-Smith A. A study of relative clauses in Williams syndrome. Journal of Child Language. 2002;29(02):403–416. doi: 10.1017/s030500090200510x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Greenberg J.H. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In: Greenberg J.H., editor. Universals of Language. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA: 1967. pp. 73–113. [Google Scholar]
  44. Grillo, N., 2005. Minimality effects in agrammatic comprehension. Paper presented at the ConSOLE XIII.
  45. Grillo N. Generalized minimality: feature impoverishment and comprehension deficits in agrammatism. Lingua. 2009;119:1426–1443. [Google Scholar]
  46. Håkansson G., Hansson K. Comprehension and production of relative clauses: a comparison between Swedish impaired and unimpaired children. Journal of Child Language. 2000;(27):313–333. doi: 10.1017/s0305000900004128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Hamburger H., Crain S. Relative acquisition. In: Kuczaj S., editor. Language development, vol. 1: Syntax and semantics. Erlbaum; Hillsdale: NJ: 1982. [Google Scholar]
  48. Harley H., Ritter E. In: Structuring the Bundle: A Universal Morphosyntactic Feature Geometry. Weise H., Simon H., editors. Elsevier Press; Pronous: 2000. [Google Scholar]
  49. Harris J.W. The exponence of gender in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry. 1991;22:27–62. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kayne R. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA: 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kidd E., Bavin E.L. English-speaking children's comprehension of relative clauses: evidence for general-cognitive and language-specific constraints on development. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 2002;31(6):599–617. doi: 10.1023/a:1021265021141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Liang K.Y., Zeger S.L. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73:13–22. [Google Scholar]
  53. Mak W.M., Vonk W., Schriefers H. The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language. 2002;47(1):50. [Google Scholar]
  54. Mak W.M., Vonk W., Schriefers H. Animacy in processing relative clauses: the hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language. 2006;54(4):466. [Google Scholar]
  55. Morin J.-Y. A morphological convergence between liason and schwa deletion in the picard and walloon dialects of french. In: Andersen H., editor. Sandhi Phenomena in the Languages of Europe. Mouton de Gruyter; Berlin: 1986. pp. 211–222. [Google Scholar]
  56. Nicol, J.L., 1988. Coreference processing during sentence comprehension. PhD Dissertation: MIT.
  57. Novrogodsky R., Friedmann N. The production of relative clauses in syntactic-sli: a window to the nature of the impairment. Advances in Speech-Language Pathology. 2006;8(4):364–375. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ozge, D., Marinis, T., Zeyrek, D., 2009. Comprehension of subject and object relative clauses in monolingual turkish children. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics.
  59. Picallo M.C. Nominals and nominalization in catalan. Probus. 1991;(3):279–316. [Google Scholar]
  60. Picallo M.C. Gender and number in romance. Lingue e Linguaggio. 2008;1:47–66. [Google Scholar]
  61. Reali F., Christiansen M.H. Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language. 2007;57:1–23. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ritter E. Two functional categories in noun phrases: evidence from modern hebrew. Syntax and Semantics. 1991;(25):37–62. [Google Scholar]
  63. Ritter E. Where's gender? Linguistic Inquiry. 1993;24:795–803. [Google Scholar]
  64. Rizzi L. MIT Press; 1990. Relativized Minimality, vol. 16. [Google Scholar]
  65. Rizzi, L. (2000). Reconstruction, weak island sensitivity, and agreement. Unpublished manuscript, CISCL University of Siena.
  66. Rizzi L. Locality and left periphery. In: Belletti A., editor. Structure and Beyond. Oxford University Press; New York: 2004. pp. 223–251. [Google Scholar]
  67. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., Zuccolotto, A., 2002a. E-prime reference guide.
  68. Schneider W., Eschman A., Zuccolotto A. Psychology Software Tools Inc.; Pittsburgh: 2002. E-prime User's Guide. [Google Scholar]
  69. Sheldon A. The role of parallel functions in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour. 1974;13:272–281. [Google Scholar]
  70. Slobin D. Developmental psycholinguistics. In: Dingwall W.O., editor. A Survey of Linguistic Science. University of Maryland ed.; 1971. [Google Scholar]
  71. Starke, M., 2001. Move dissolves into merge: a theory of locality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
  72. Stavrakaki S. Comprehension of reversible relative clauses in specifically language impaired and normally developing Greek children. Brain and Language. 2001;77:419–431. doi: 10.1006/brln.2000.2412. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Stavrakaki S. A-bar movement constructions in Greek children with sli: evidence for deficits in the syntactic component of language. In: Fava E., editor. Clinical Linguistics: Theory and Applications in Speech Pathology and Therapy. John Benjamins; Amsterdam & Philadelphia: 2002. pp. 131–153. [Google Scholar]
  74. Stella G., Pizzoli C., Tressoldi P.E. Peabody; 2000. Test di Vocabolario Recettivo. [Google Scholar]
  75. Tavakolian S.L. The conjoined-clause analysis of relative clauses. In: Tavakolian S.L., editor. Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA: 1981. [Google Scholar]
  76. Traxler M.J., Morris R.K., Seely R.E. Processing of subject and object relative clauses: evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language. 2002;(47):69–90. [Google Scholar]
  77. Utzeri, I., 2007. The production and acquisition of subject and object relative clauses in Italian: a comparative experimental study. Paper presented at the Nanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2007.
  78. Van Dyke J.A. Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2007;33(2):407–430. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Van Dyke J.A., Lewis R.L. Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: a cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language. 2003;49(3):285–316. [Google Scholar]
  80. Van Dyke J.A., McElree B. Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language. 2006;55:157–166. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Vergnaud J.-R. MIT; 1974. French Relative Clauses. [Google Scholar]
  82. Warren T., Gibson E. The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition. 2002;85:79–112. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00087-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Warren T., Gibson E. Effects of np-type on reading English clefts. Language and Cognitive Processes. 2005;20(6):751–767. [Google Scholar]
  84. Zukowski A. Elicited production of relative clauses in children with Williams syndrome. Language and Cognitive Processes. 2008;24(1):1–43. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES